|
|
 | | From: | jmfbahciv at aol.com | | Subject: | Re: What is the Nature of Physics? | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 07:33:29 +0000 (UTC) |
|
|
 | In article ,
Lou Pecora wrote:
>In article ,
> "I.Vecchi" wrote:
>
>> > I think you have to also add the constraint that the models must be
>> > consistent, i.e. non-contradictory.
>>
>> Interesting remark, but I then I would ask "Consistent for whom?". I mean,
>> in whose discourse?
>>
>> Fudges and suspensions of disbelief are acceptable as long as a theory
>> delivers on predictions. Leibniz immediately pointed out Newton's
>> assumption of an absolute reference frame as inconsistent. That insight was
>> vindicated two centuries later, but I would hardly dismiss Newton's theory
>> as unscientific.
>>
>> One could also describe the foundations of current QM (not to mention QFT)
>> as a mess, although the theory does a decent predictive job.
>>
>> Inconsistency matters when it is exploded by blatant predictive failure.
>> Otherwise most people will nod through the nonsense.
>
>Yes, but consistency should be a goal. It should force us to
>continually examine all theories.
But they are examined continually! What do you think is getting
in all of those undergrad labs?
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
|
|
| | From: | Lou Pecora | | Subject: | Re: What is the Nature of Physics? | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:56:32 +0000 (UTC) |
|
|
|
In article , jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
> >Yes, but consistency should be a goal. It should force us to
> >continually examine all theories.
>
> But they are examined continually! What do you think is getting
> in all of those undergrad labs?
>
>
> /BAH
I don't understand your question. Do you agree that they should be
examined, regardless of whether that is being done or not?
-- Lou Pecora (my views are my own)
|
|
|
